Cape Town – Opposition party the Democratic Alliance’s (DA) attempts to persuade the Portfolio Committee on Labour to proceed with discussions about a forensic report by the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) yielded little to no fruit on Wednesday in Parliament, Cape Town.
“In South African law, there is no ‘poison fruits’ clause,” said the DA’s Ian Ollis, “If you find a dead person and a gun, that is evidence. We have the gun, pages and pages of it.”
“There is no reason we should not to proceed,” he said.
In a continuation of a June 17 sitting, Ollis – along with fellow DA portfolio committee members Michael Bagraim and Derrick America – unsuccessfully called on the chair Lumka Yengeni to move forward with the meeting to address findings and suggestions contained in the Nedlac audit report.
The report, conducted to investigate allegations of financial impropriety and irregular financial controls and expenditure at Nedlac, was submitted to Nedlac in November 2012. The report found that, among others, staff advances and loans were given without proper approval, personal air travel had been paid for by Nedlac while there had been inadequate accounting records as well as the unauthorised use of Diners Club cards.
Frequently named in the report was Minister of Labour Mildred Olipant’s current and then advisor Herbert Mkhize and the former Nedlac chief financial officer Umesh Dulabh. Mkhize allegedly spent over R1 million of Nedlac’s funds on goods and services such as a High School Musical DVD, nappies, boxer briefs and on renting luxury vehicles.
Dulabh, who resigned without reconciling with the findings of the investigation, allegedly spent Nedlac funds on flying business class and purchasing items such as a weed killer, an urn and alcoholic drinks.
The portfolio committee meeting, however, quickly turned into a back-and-forth between political parties, Nedlac, and the department.
Dumisani Mthalane, Nedlac’s Overall Convenor for Community Constituencies, said the forensic process was not properly conducted and said that certain individuals were clearly targetted in the process.
“No matter what you do, we know what fish we want,” he said, allegedly quoting another convenor and saying it had been said in front of Oliphant, a statement he later withdrew.
“I spoke to Herbert [Mkhize] and asked him to reconcile with the findings,” said Mthalane, “Herbert said he tried but was told the process was already closed.”
Mthalane further argued that the independence of the audit committee had been undermined by the chairperson with his involvement in the administration of the department and his office’s physical closeness to the Executive Committee.
The Democratic Alliance’s Ian Ollis immediately jumped on Mthalane’s statements regarding Mkhize and Oliphant.
“That is quite a serious change of story as it implicates the Minister in a plot,” said Ollis.
He added that Mthalane’s reference to Mkhize inferred he had admitted to owing money to the State.
The rest of the session circulated around whether the correct procedures were followed in conducting the investigation and whether Minister was sufficiently informed.
Yengeni said it illustrated a lack of courtesy for the investigation to have proceeded without Oliphant’s knowledge who she said had the right to know.
Bagraim hit back: “The Minister has not raised any query or objection. The investigation exists, the Minister has endorsed it, and the investigation is legitimate.”
With no conclusion having been met – other than that the DA wanted Oliphant to answer the Committee’s questions whilst the African National Congress wanted Director General of Labour Thobile Lamati to do so – Yengeni postponed discussion of the report, stating the matter was still under investigation and further discussion could potentially mean they were criminalising those who may not be criminals at all.
ANA